JUDGMENT 1. The accused-appellant Heera Lal has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli Camp Hindauncity under its judgment dated 27th July 1990 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer two years rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment to fine to further suffer seven days simple imprisonment. The accused-appellant Prem daughter of Shri Sheo Chand has been convicted under section 323 Indian Penal Code, but she has been sentenced to sentence already undergone. 2. Dodi PW 4 is the son of Bhonraya PW 6. on 1st April 1984 in the morning Kallan @ Kalyan PW 3 along with Gyarsi PW i had gone to jungle to graze cattle and the cattle trespassed in the fields of Sheochand. Sheochand who thereafter died and Heeralal accused appellants are said to have given beating to Kalyan @ Kallan PW 3 and Gyarsi PW 1 Both returned to their houses. On the same day in the evening. it is said that Prem daughter of Sheo Chand came to the house of Gyarsi and Kalyan and again gave beating to Kalyan PW 3 and Prem is said to have gone to the house saying that she will be coming back with other members of the family. Kalyan thereafter went to Sarpanch to report about the matter When he had left to report to Sarpanch, it is alleged that at about sun-set on the same day. the two accused appellants alone with Sheochand and Gulbai came to the house of Sukhpalia deceased, father of Kalyan PW 3 and others. Sukhpalia was sitting on 'chabutra'. Heeralal was armed with an axe and gave blows with it on the neck of Sukhpalia who fell on the Chabutra and lateron died. Sheochand is said to have caused injuries by its blunt side to Dodi and his father Bhonriya when Bhonriya intervened. Sukhpalia was sitting on 'chabutra'. Heeralal was armed with an axe and gave blows with it on the neck of Sukhpalia who fell on the Chabutra and lateron died. Sheochand is said to have caused injuries by its blunt side to Dodi and his father Bhonriya when Bhonriya intervened. Dodi PW 4 went to the police station and lodged a report Ex P 4 where an FIR No. 48 was registered at 12.30 The distance from the place of occurrence as given in the FIR Ex P 6 in the prescribed for m is 12 kms. A case was registered and investigation was set in motion. 3. Sukhpalia died as a result of the injury allegedly caused by the accused appellant Heera Lal and Dr. M.L. Sharma PW 12 conducted autopsy en his dead body on 2nd April 1954 and found that there was following external injury on his person. "One incised (sharp) wound on the left postern lateral part of the neck size is 31/2" X 21/4" X 3" deep". The injury was grievious caused by sharp weapon. All posterolateral musculature were cut. Half portion of the bony vertelera cut Half of the spinal cord also cut. On opening the cranium and spinal cord Doctor found that scalp. skull and vertibrae lower cervical vartebrae half cut on lateropos-terior direction In the opinion of the doctor the deceased died due to excessive blood loss and cut (sharply) injury to the cervical part of spinal cord and versels to the brain. 4. PW 12 Dr. NU, Sharma also examined injuries on the other injured persons Dodi PW 4 Bhoji PW 5, Kalyan PW 3, Gyarsi Daughter of Chunnilal PW 1 and Bhonriya PW 6 He found that Dodi PW 4 has received as many as four injuries, all simple by blunt weapon, Bhoji had also received simple injuries by blunt weapon, Kalla @ Kalyan had received four injuries, all simple by blunt weapon. Gyarsi daughter of Chimman had received five injuries, all simple by blunt weapon and Bhonriya had received five injuries out of which except injury No. 5 all were caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 5 was grievious. Injury No. 3 was caused by pointed weapon and others were caused by blunt weapon. 5. The accused persons were arrested and during the investigation Sheochand died. Injury No. 5 was grievious. Injury No. 3 was caused by pointed weapon and others were caused by blunt weapon. 5. The accused persons were arrested and during the investigation Sheochand died. The police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against two accused-appellants and the learned Sessions Judge as said above convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid. 6. The defence of the accused appellants was of private defence of person. They came out with a plea that in the after-noon the cattle had trespassed in the fields and as a result of it in the evening it was the complainant party who had come to their house and occurrence had taken place opposite to the house and in it Sheochand and Heeralal had received injuries. The accused-persons examined Dr. Shyam Behari DW-I who proved the injuries of Sheochand who had died as said earlier. He found that Sheochand had received as many as five injuries, as under: 1. Incised wound 3" x1/2" x1/2" on right parital bone on right side. 2. Incised wound 2" x1/2" x1/2" on right temporal bone. 3. Incised wound 1" x1/4" x⅛" on left oxypital bone. 4. Abraision 1/2" x1/4" on the posterior aspect of right elbow joint. 5. Abraision 1/4"x⅛" on front of right knee joint. 7. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has assailed the, judgment of the learned trial court inter alia on the ground that the FIR is a post investigation report and. therefore, cannot be relied upon. He further contends that even as per statements of the prosecution witnesses there were other independent witnesses present at the.time of incident and none of them have been examined and only interested witnesses have been examined and on their statements alone the case of the prosecution should not be relied upon. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the accused persons and further contended that the possibility that the accused persons received injuries in the same occurrence in exercise of right of private defence cannot be excluded. At any rate, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for the accused appellants in support of his contention has referred to a case of Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 . The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the case of the prosecution 8. At any rate, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for the accused appellants in support of his contention has referred to a case of Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 . The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the case of the prosecution 8. The first question is as to whether or not as contended by the learned counsel for the accused appellants. the FIR is a post investigation report. Learned counsel contended that one of the injured was Bhorya @ Bhorilal and the FIR was lodged on 2-4-1984 in the Police Station at I2.30 a.m. But the injury report Ex. P. 18 of Bhorilal will show that he was examined by the doctor at 11.30 p m on 1-4-1984. Therefore, he was medically examined before the FIR was lodged and the SHO Bahadur Singh PW 11, the Investigating Officer of the case. has admitted in his cross examination that after he reached the spot, he had sent Bhonrilal for medical examination and that Bhonri Lal was examined on the requisition of the police. No doubt in his cross examination he has stated so but a perusal of injury report of Bhonrilal will show that he was not examined on the requisition or request of the police but was examined on his own request. It will further be seen that so far as other injury reports of injured persons are concerned. they were examined on the police requisition. Bhonrya @ Bhorilal PW 6 has not stated as to whether or not he had gone for medical examination on his own or was sent by the police. The occurrence had taken place as said above on 1st April 1984 and the statements of witnesses were recorded in the court on 6th June, 1989. To see as to whether or not Bhorilal was examined at the request of the police or on his own accord, we have also seen the case diary and it appears to us that Bhonrilal had himself gone for MLR. Thus, it appears that due to lapse of time, on cross examination the SHO has said that he sent Bhonrilal for medical examination but it appears to us that Bhonrilal had gone to Doctor for medical examination and that is why on the medical report Ex. Thus, it appears that due to lapse of time, on cross examination the SHO has said that he sent Bhonrilal for medical examination but it appears to us that Bhonrilal had gone to Doctor for medical examination and that is why on the medical report Ex. P 18 it is mentioned that he was examined on his own request, but in other injury reports it appears that they were examined on police requisition. Thus, on this submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants. we are unable to say that the FIR was a post investigation report. 9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that it has come in the evidence of PW 4 Dodi that he had folded the report and there were marks of fold when it was delivered in the police station, whereas a look at Ex. P. 4 will show that there are no folds and, therefore, it can be said that Ex. P 4 is not the original report and has been substituted lateron. The paper has remained in the file for long and therefore. merely because it does not have any folds, more so when after it was presented to the police same day, the police must have kept it as received in its file. we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that there were folds on the report. 10. It will be seen that after the SHO/IO had reached the spot. he prepared an inquest report and a perusal of all the memos prepared on the spot and the inquest report will show that if the FIR would have been a post investigation report, then the number of the FIR would not have found place in various memos prepared by the SHO on the spot. The contention of the learned counsel is that while preparing the inquest report the facts from the FIR are extracted in it, but in the present inquest report Ex. P. 7 facts have not been stated and, therefore. also he contends that the FIR has not yet been lodged and it is a post inquest report. The contention of the learned counsel is that while preparing the inquest report the facts from the FIR are extracted in it, but in the present inquest report Ex. P. 7 facts have not been stated and, therefore. also he contends that the FIR has not yet been lodged and it is a post inquest report. We have already said earlier in the earlier part of this judgment that the inquest report contains the number of FIR Not only it appears to us that number of FIR but also entire inquest report is written in the same ink in the same hand Even the learned counsel for the accused-appellants could not refer to any provision of either Code of Criminal Procedure or of Rajasthan Police Rules requiring that the inquest report must contain the facts from the FIR. It is well known and a bare reading of Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code will show that a report is to be drawn of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds. fractures bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, it any , such walks appear to hove been inflicted, Therefore. the purpose of inquest report under section 174 Criminal Procedure Code is to know as to what are the wounds, fractures etc on the body, by what weapon they appear to have been caused and to know the cause of death and no further. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel that the report was post inquest report. 11. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that there were independent witnesses present at the time of incident and none has been examined and all the witnesses who have been examined are interested witnesses being relations and only on their testimony the case of the prosecution is advanced. It does appear from the scrutiny of the eye witnesses, 2nd the prosecution has examined a number of eye witnesses namely Gyarsi PW 1. Sampati PW 2. Dodi PW 4, Bhoji PW and Bhorya PW 6. that there were other persons also nearby the place of occurrence who were present and none of them have been examined. It does appear from the scrutiny of the eye witnesses, 2nd the prosecution has examined a number of eye witnesses namely Gyarsi PW 1. Sampati PW 2. Dodi PW 4, Bhoji PW and Bhorya PW 6. that there were other persons also nearby the place of occurrence who were present and none of them have been examined. It can also he said that the witnesses who have been examined are of the same family, but it will be seen that many of them have received injuries and occurrence had taken place allegedly at the house of deceased Sukhpalia,their presence is natural. There is material on record that the houses of accused appellants and others and of deceased Sukhpalia and others are opposite to each other and there is a lane in between. Therefore. only on the ground that witnesses are partision, their statement cannot be straight away thrown out, but at the same time witnesses should be scrutinised with caution. All the eye witnesses whose names have been given above have stated in one voice that because Prem accused appellant had come to the house and had again given beating to Kahan Cd,j Kallan PW 3, she was asked not to do so and she had left house saying that she will return back with her other family members. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that number of persons have been injured from the side of the complainant party and if the accused persons would have been aggressors, number of injuries on the accused persons would have been much larger and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the prosecution that the prosecution story appears to he correct that both the accused persons alongwith two others namely Sheochand who died during the investigation of the case and Gulbai who was unarmed had come to the house of Suklipalia and for no reason caused injuries to Sukhpalia who was sitting with his grand child on the Chabutra. 13. Gyarsi PW I Daughter of Chimman states that the occurrence had taken place in the fields of accused-appellant Heeralal and according to her statement it was Heeralal accused-appellant who had given beating to her and Kalyan PW 3. She and Kalyan had returned to the house and then Prem had come and again gave beating to Kalyan. 13. Gyarsi PW I Daughter of Chimman states that the occurrence had taken place in the fields of accused-appellant Heeralal and according to her statement it was Heeralal accused-appellant who had given beating to her and Kalyan PW 3. She and Kalyan had returned to the house and then Prem had come and again gave beating to Kalyan. and then old man and others had intervened and then she left the house saying that she will return with other members of the family. A similar statement has been mac1e by Sampati PW 2. It will be seen from the statement of Gyarsi PW 1 that she too had received injuries and we have already said above by referring to the statement of Dr. Murari Lal Sharma PW 12 that on examining Gyarsi PW I he had found that she had received as many as five injuries. After having gone through the statement of eve witnesses namely Gyarsi PW 1 Sampati PW 2, Kalvan PW 3 Dodi PW 4. Bhoji PW 5 and Bhorya PW 6, we are of the opinion that it was accused-appellant who had caused injury with sharp edged weapon an Axe, on the neck of deceased Sukhpalia. 14. Coming to the case as to whether or not a case of right of private defence is made out. The right of private defence is only a defensive right and not an offensive right. If the accused persons have come armed and caused injuries to the deceased and others and if they too had received some injuries to which reference has been made in the earlier part of this judgement. only question is as to whether it was necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused persons? 15. The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Singh (Supra) has said that if the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, the court can draw the following inferences ; "1. That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. 2. That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable; 3. That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. 2. That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable; 3. That in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one". 16. The Apex Court referred to the earlier case of State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, AIR 1975 SC 1478 wherein the Apex Court has said that there may be cases where the non.explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case and that principal would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. 17. We have already given the facts of the case and so far as Sukhpalia is concerned, he was an old man and as per the case of the prosecution he was sitting with his grand-child and for no rhyme or reason Heeralal came there with an axe and gave an injury to him with that axe with such force that the injury which has been extracted above was caused to him and he fell on the ground. No doubt the witnesses of the case are of the same family. they are of the same family in the house of which the occurrence took place. But because many of the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, are themselves injured and we have already referred to the injuries of the prosecution witnesses, their presence can hardly be doubtful. 18. they are of the same family in the house of which the occurrence took place. But because many of the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, are themselves injured and we have already referred to the injuries of the prosecution witnesses, their presence can hardly be doubtful. 18. Consequently, we find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that it was a case of exercise of right of private defence of Sheochand and Heeralal and the accused persons did not commit any offence. 19. Prem had caused simple injuries and she has committed an offence only under section 323 Indian Penal Code and she has been sentenced to already undergone. 20. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******